|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|06-1666||D.C. Cir.||Mar 25, 2008||Jun 12, 2008||9-0||Roberts||OT 2007|
Holding: (1) The habeas statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command. The government's argument that the federal courts lack jurisdiction over the detainees' habeas petitions in such circumstances because the American forces holding Shawqi Omar and Mohammad Munaf operate as part of a multinational force is rejected. The habeas statute, 28 U. S. C. § 2241(c)(1), applies to persons held "in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States." The disjunctive "or" in Section 2241(c)(1) makes clear that actual government custody suffices for jurisdiction, even if that custody could be viewed as "under . . . color of" another authority, such as the Multinational Force-Iraq. (2) Federal district courts, however, may not exercise their habeas jurisdiction to enjoin the United States from transferring individuals alleged to have committed crimes and detained within the territory of a foreign sovereign to that sovereign for criminal prosecution. Because Omar and Munaf state no claim in their habeas petitions for which relief can be granted, their habeas petitions should have been promptly dismissed, and no injunction should have been entered.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts on June 12, 2008. Justice Souter filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Breyer joined.
Wait wut.. RBG ghost-wrote the equal protection bits of Obergefell?!
And I learned this on @SCOTUSblog’s TikTok?! https://www.tiktok.com/@scotusblog/video/6922179577724931333
"This is not our first commission rodeo” says Levy. 😉
Love this write up of the @BrookingsInst's panel yesterday with @Susan_Hennessey, @danepps,@cdkang76, and @mollyereynolds.
Thanks, @SCOTUSblog and Kalvis Golde!
Spilling SCOTUS tea on TikTok today. Well, actually, @eskridgebill spilled the tea, we just tok’d about it. 🍵
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
In this morning's orders list, SCOTUS took no action on pending cert petitions involving:
- Mississippi's near-ban on abortions after 15 weeks,
- a Trump rule banning Title X clinics from providing abortion referrals,
- the Trump administration's "public charge" immigration rule.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.